Tag Archives: abuse

A good friend of mine had an epiphany a couple of days ago while pondering the global gun control issue. He found a way to summarize the entire gun control debate in one sentence:

“If all the AK47s in Libya were licensed and registered, Muammar Gaddafi would still be alive today.”

Do you like it? I do. In fact, I like it so much that I’m dedicating an a blog entry to it. It’s amazing how much meaning can be crammed into a single sentence!!

First point: the AK-47.

The most quoted and, apparently feared, firearm on the face of the planet. The Avtomat Kalashnikova selective-fire, gas operated, 7.62 x 39mm rifle was officially adopted for use by the Soviet Army in 1947. Since then, it has become a favourite for military forces around the world, due to its robust design, reliability, low cost and ease of use. AK-variant rifles are, in fact, the most widely produced assault rifle in the world [Source: Weaponomics: The Global Market for Assault Rifles; Killicoat, Phillip; WPS4202; April 2007].

The AK-47 is also incredibly popular among gun control advocates. Every time a government suggests relaxing gun control laws, the cries of “Assault rifles will be easier to get!!” are heard from coast to coast. They intentionally invoke images of madmen running loose with AK-47s, shooting anyone who happens across their path. In the minds of gun control advocates, the AK-47 is the most dangerous gun ever made and nobody should ever own it, or anything like it. They rely on the average person’s ignorance about firearms to create a state of fear and further their cause. The bottom line is that a gun is a gun is a gun. All are inert objects, the only danger comes from the person behind the trigger.

Second point: Libya.

The Arab Spring: a string of revolutions throughout North Africa and the Middle East. To mention but a few highlights, it began in Tunisia in December 2010, led to the overthrow of the Egyptian government in February 2011, and 9 months of bloody civil war in Libya. The fighting has calmed in most affected countries, but still rages unchecked in Syria.

The protests, demonstrations and revolutions that rocked the Arab world were widely hailed as positive by the Western World. They were seen as pro-democracy, the will of people, and the start of a positive new future for citizens of oppressed nations.

The hypocrisy of it all is that, while groups such as Amnesty International supported these uprisings against oppressive regimes and dictators, they continued to try to disarm the very citizens they were supporting! Now that the war has ended, the UN has become very vocal about disarming the people of Libya. They are actively working towards preventing any future generations of Libyans from having the means to fight for their freedom if the need arises again.

Libya is a fitting example for the gun control issue on another front as well. They have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Civilian gun ownership is entirely prohibited and it is also illegal to privately sell or transfer them. Despite gun ownership being illegal, civilians own nearly twice as many guns as the military and police. Civilian firearms are numbered at about 900,000, military firearms at 535,200 and police firearms at 22,000. The rate of civilian firearms ownership is 15.5 per 100 people. In comparison, in Canada, the rate of civilian firearms ownership is 23.8 per 100 people [Source: Small Arms Survey, 2007].

Let me say that again. In a country where civilian ownership of firearms is completely outlawed, the citizenry still outgun the military and police by almost 2:1!!!

To summarize, while organizations like Amnesty International fully support the revolutions of the Arab Spring, they are doing everything in their power to ensure that the people revolting are denied the very tools that they need to succeed.

Third point: Licensing and Registration

Oh boy, where do I even start on this one? This topic has been done to death so many times, I’m not sure I even want to address it again. These vary between countries, but here’s the nutshell version for Canada:

Licensing. This is the process through which a government body determines an individual’s fitness to own firearms. It essentially states that firearms ownership is illegal unless you are granted an exemption from that law by means of a license.

Registration. This ties a firearm to its owner by means of a registration certificate. The certificate contains information regarding the type of firearm (make, model, serial number, etc) and that certificate is linked to a specific firearms license holder.

They seem innocent enough on the surface, but these two puppies have been the cause of much death and destruction throughout history. Put simply, every major genocide of the twentieth century was preceded by civilian disarmament – Ottoman Turkey, USSR, China, Rwanda, Guatemala, Uganda, Germany. These confiscation schemes were all aided through systems of licensing and registration. It’s common sense really – you can’t take a gun away from a person if you don’t first know that they have it.

In some cases, Hitler and Mao for example, the introduction of the gun control laws was very methodical and a strategic part of their plans. In other cases, Rwanda and Guatemala, the existing laws were a simple and convenient means to a horrific end.

The bottom line is that the intentions of the people who enact these laws are irrelevant. What’s important is the potential for abuse and misuse of these laws in the future. Simply put, if the potential for misuse exists, it’s a bad law.

Putting it all together

Muammar Gaddafi was one of the longest reigning and perhaps one of the most well-known dictators in recent history. The reason that Muammar Gaddafi is dead is because the people of Libya had the resolve to rebel against him. The means of their rebellion was their ability to fight for their freedom through the use of privately owned firearms. The people of Libya were still armed, despite prohibitions on firearms ownership, simply because the country did not have a system of licensing and registration in place that would have allowed for wholesale confiscation. If Gaddafi had gun controls in place, he would have confiscated firearms prior to viciously crushing the resistance, making many pay the price so that he could remain alive, unchallenged and in power.

Civilian gun ownership is not about hunting or target shooting or even home defense. It is about freedom and democracy. Many gun control advocates imagine a world where only the police and the military own guns – a police state. Others imagine a world of peace where nobody needs guns. While this is a noble goal, it is not the world we currently live in. Until the causes of violence are addressed, guns will continue to be a necessary tool in our lives.

The Gun Control Lobby is working hard to convince the public and our MPs that gun control is a gendered issue, in particular, a women’s issue. They’re right, but not in the way they would have us believe.

Their angle is that abusive men use firearms to intimidate, threaten and harm women. While this is true in some cases, it still doesn’t make sense to focus on the gun rather than on the person who is wielding it. Take away the gun and the abuser will use a knife. Take away the knife and the abuser will use their fists. The key is to stop the abuse, not to regulate objects that an abuser may or may not use.

This is where the long gun registry becomes a women’s issue. By taking away money from programs that could actually help victims of abuse, gun control activists are ensuring that the abuse will continue.

Estimates vary regarding how much money will be saved by scrapping the long gun registry – most are in the neighbourhood of $3-11 million per year. However, those estimates don’t take into consideration the hidden costs of the registry. Things like law enforcement, court fees, and endless mountains of paperwork to name but a few.

Looking at law enforcement alone, let’s do a quick run through the numbers. Taking the RCMP numbers at face value, the registry is accessed 3.4 million times per year. Assuming each “hit” takes five minutes that works out to 283,333 police hours per year. At an average work year of 2000 hours per officer that means that 141 police officers do nothing but registry checks each year.

If that wasn’t bad enough, how about we take it a step further? Let’s take an average salary of $70,000 per year, plus an additional $30,000 in benefits, giving us an approximate value of $100,000 per officer per year (not taking operating expenses into account). That’s a total of $14.1 million per year spent, or 141 officers off the streets, without solving or preventing a single crime.

Even with my very low estimates, if you add those numbers up we could save $17-25 million in tax dollars per year!!!!!

Now, let’s go back to the issue of abuse: there are approximately 10,700 beds in 569 women’s shelters, nationwide. Those beds accommodate well over 100,000 abused women and children each year. The money saved from scrapping the registry could fund an additional 550-830 new shelter beds across the country. [Source: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile, 2009]

The money doesn’t have to go towards shelters though. Imagine what $17-25 million could do in public awareness or education campaigns to teach young women how to avoid abusive relationships, or what their options are if they are in one. Imagine what $17-25 million could do for mental health programs that help treat and prevent abusive behaviour.

Over the last fifteen years, hundred of millions of dollars have been funneled into the firearms registry. According to the Auditor General’s Reports in 2002 and 2006, large sums of that money are still unaccounted for. What have our tax dollars purchased? The registry didn’t stop the Dawson College shooting. It did nothing to save Jane Creba. Nor did it prevent the murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta. There has been no impact on the spousal homicide rates either. Those have been falling steadily since the 1970s – long before the registry was ever considered.

Organizations like the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) thrive on women as victims. In fact, they need victims to support their cause. They manipulate victimized women and their grieving families, convincing them that they or their loved ones would have been safe if not for the presence of those “evil” guns. They know there are no facts to support their claims, so they parade these unfortunate people in front of the media in a blatant attempt to influence public opinion with emotion instead.

With the help of many of the organizations that make up the Gun Control Lobby, we have been trained to expect women to be abused. We have been urged to believe that there is no way to foresee this abuse, prevent it or stop it, even though there are several identifiable risk factors. The Gun Control Lobby ignores sources like the Department of Justice or Statistics Canada, who point out that substance abuse, particularly alcohol, makes a person six times more likely to abuse their partner. They neglect to mention that common law couples are four times more likely to experience abuse than legally married couples. Instead, they loudly insist that the mere presence of a gun in the home leads to intimidation and abuse. Where are the facts backing up those claims?

For the last fifteen years, despite a complete lack of any data to support their statements, the CGC and their Gun Control Lobby cohorts have been trying to convince us that guns are the problem. Their inability to look past the object to the person who is wielding it, has caused immeasurable harm to the women they are supposedly trying to help. Fifteen years and billions of dollars could have made a huge difference in the lives of abused women across this country. If that money had gone towards even one of the issues mentioned above, countless women and children could have been helped. It’s time to stop throwing good money after bad, and direct our resources to where they are really needed.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m sick to death of hearing the word “prorogue”. The lies, disinformation and manufactured hype surrounding Harper’s recent prorogation of parliament are starting to wear a bit thin.

Contrary to what the Liberals and their opposition cohorts would have you believe, prorogation is a legitimate, and common, parliamentary tool used in the Commonwealth Parliaments of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. Granted, it has a history of being used in a more questionable manner in Canada than anywhere else in the world, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a legitimate parliamentary process [check out this page for more information on prorogation].

In the 142 years since Sir John A MacDonald became the first Prime Minister of Canada, our parliament has been prorogued 105 times. That works out to roughly once every 16 months – hardly a rare event.

I can hear the Liberal shills screaming right now, “But it’s not the same thing! Harper is trying to dodge responsibility!” Really? Kind of like when Jean Chretien prorogued in 2003 to avoid the auditor general’s release of the report on AdScam, the sponsorship scandal in Quebec?

I don’t know enough about the “Afghan Detainee” controversy to say that it was a factor in Harper’s decision to prorogue parliament this winter. I do understand basic math though. According to the information given to the public thus far, the first reports of prisoner abuse were submitted to the government in “early” 2006. Stephen Harper was sworn into office on Feb 2, 2006. That means the alleged torture was already taking place before he came into office, under Paul Martin’s Liberal government. Could Harper have done more to address the issue? I don’t know enough to say either way, but I do know enough to say that shutting down the special committee saves the Liberal Party from public scrutiny just as much, if not more so, than the Conservatives.

If it wasn’t Afghanistan, why did Harper prorogue? I’m not a mind reader, but I have an idea or two. If Prime Minister Harper has shown us one thing over the last three and a half years, it’s that he is a very shrewd and adept political strategist. From my untrained perspective I can see two issues that are of much more importance than Afghanistan to the PM right now: the Senate and the budget.

The current breakdown of the Senate is as follows:

Affiliation

Senators

Conservative Party

46

Liberal Party

49

Progressive Conservative Caucus

2

Independent

2

No Affiliation

1

Vacant

5

Total as of January 2, 2010

105

If Harper uses this time to fill those 5 vacant seats, the balance of power in the Senate will tip to the Conservatives. The Liberals, of course, are protesting this, saying that the PM will now be able to “ram through” his legislation. Kind of like the Liberals have been doing for the last 30 years then, no?

That brings us to the budget. With the entire world teetering on the brink of economic collapse (you didn’t think the recession was over did you?) I can’t think of a single more important issue for the PM to be addressing right now. By proroguing, the PM has timed things so that the budget will be delivered as soon as parliament reconvenes and left the opposition parties little time to mount a protest against it. This is both good and bad: bad because some questionable items may be pushed through without proper consideration; good because it effectively limits the ability of the opposition to topple the minority government.

I can hear the protests already, “But..but..that’s undemocratic!” No. That’s simply the reality of our style of government – especially minority government. People seem to have forgotten that minority governments are not so much about running the country as they are about political survival. This is by no means new to Stephen Harper, but the general public tends to have a short memory.

Speaking of democracy, the Liberal Party is in no position to preach on that topic. After all, it was their attempt to stage a coup against the democratically elected government of Canada that prompted the 2008 prorogation of parliament. In Canada’s 142 years since confederation there has only ever been one coalition government. That government was formed in 1917 when Robert Borden’s Unionist party – who had won a clear majority – requested a coalition with the Liberal Party during World War 1. No matter which way you try to spin it, the Liberal Party’s attempt, with the help of the NDP and the Bloc, to usurp power from the Conservative Party can be called nothing other than a coup d’etat. So no, they are in absolutely no position to speak on the topic of democracy.

On the topic of the people voicing their opinions, there were organized protests against prorogation held in 32 communities across the country yesterday. Only 25,000 people turned up nationwide, including a mere 3,500 in Ottawa. In 1994, by comparison, 10,000 protesters marched on Ottawa alone in an attempt to stop the passage of C-68, now known as the Firearms Act. The people have spoken on the issue of prorogation, and they don’t care.

Cutting through all the media hype, sensationalism and fear-mongering, I think Harper’s decision had much more to do with political strategy than dodging responsibility. Even if he did elect to prorogue because of the Afghan issue, he hasn’t prevented an inquiry, he has merely delayed it. Regardless of his motives, his decision to prorogue was a gamble, and only time will tell if it was a mistake.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the “Montreal Massacre”. On December 6, 1989 Marc Lépine/Gamil Gharbi embarked on a shooting spree at École Polytechnique in Montreal. In twenty minutes, he shot 28 people, killing 14, before turning his gun on himself.

Tragedies of this sort are extremely rare in Canada. Since 1975, when the first recorded shooting took place, there have been only 8 school shootings in this country. The École Polytechnique shooting claimed more lives than all of the other shootings combined.

The real tragedy though, is the way that left-wing fringe groups continue to use the events of that day for their own purposes. While I don’t agree with them, I can understand why the founders of the Coalition for Gun Control reacted as they did in the immediate aftermath of the shooting – the CGC was co-founded by Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen, who was present at École Polytechnique the day of the shooting.

What I can’t understand or condone is how they justify their actions now, twenty years after the fact. Every year, militant feminist groups and gun control advocates brazenly disinter the victims, parading their ghosts before the public in a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate and shame people into supporting their cause.

The shooting at École Polytechnique was unique because the gunman specifically targetted women for the purpose of “fighting feminism”. Much discussion has taken place over the last two decades as to what motivated Marc Lépine/Gamil Gharbi. Some point to his upbringing with a mysoginist father, others say he suffered brain damage due to abuse, but the most commonly trumpeted response is that he was representative of wider societal violence against women.

It is this thinking that has led extremist feminist groups to hijack the anniversary of that day to shamelessly use it for their own ends. Rather than seeking real solutions to violence in our society and the causes of domestic abuse, they instead sully the memory of those who died in order to promote their own brand of misandry.

Approximately 70 women are killed as a result of domestic violence each year. Since 1989, that’s roughly 1400 women who have lost their lives. If these organizations claiming to be for the advancement of women’s rights were truly interested in preventing violence against women, you’d think they would be focussing on the 1400, rather than the 14.

There’s a very simple reason why these groups focus on the 14 though: it’s easier. Concentrating on the 1400 would require them to look for real solutions to complicated and deeply rooted problems in our society. By making a lot of noise and focussing on the gun control legislation that sprang from this tragedy, they can go to bed at night content that they’ve “done something” to prevent violence against women. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t work.

This year, when the Gun Control Lobby and the extremist feminist groups dishonour the victims of École Polytechnique, which they’ve already started, take a moment to remember that the women who lost their lives that day were people, not symbols. See the organizations who debase the memory of these women for what they really are: a group of angry, scared and grieving people who would rather blame men and guns for all of their problems than tackle the real issues.

When I created this blog, I had no desire to turn it into the Elizabeth Mandelman show. But since she continues to post half-truths and outright lies and I’ve been banned from commenting on her blog, I’m left with little choice.

In one of my early posts on Ms Mandelman’s blog (now deleted), I made a comment about how victims choose to stay with their abusive partners. Another reader took exception to that:

Natasha says:

“…I find it very presumptuous to say that all Pat had to do was leave. How can you leave someone who is threatening your life with a gun? If she were to leave, how do you know her husband were not to follow her to wherever she was staying and harm not only her but also the people she loves? Also, it is important to note that her daughter must have been very young at the time. Thus, it was not solely her own well being for which she had to be concerned but additionally that of her child.”

I agree that once a relationship reaches that degree of violence and abuse, leaving is no easy task. And children most definitely complicate the issue. The point that people like Natasha and Ms Mandelman are missing is that abusive relationships don’t just “happen”. People don’t just wake up one morning and say to themselves “I think I’m going to kick my spouse in the head today.” These relationships evolve over time. The incidents usually start out small and easy to rationalize with thoughts like “they didn’t really mean it”, or “it was an accident”. But over time they gradually become worse and worse, because by staying, the victim is silently telling their partner that their behaviour is acceptable. There are thousands of points along the way where the victim makes the choice to stay and accept the abuse.

So I agree with Cindy Cowan when she says:

“Spending money on ‘patching women up’ is not the solution to ending domestic violence.”

Patching women up is quite literally, a Band-Aid solution. Education programs in high schools, public awareness campaigns, treatment programs for abusers, an end to our “revolving door” justice system, these would be fantastic starting points to address the issue of domestic violence. Increased restrictions on law-abiding citizens, on the other hand, would not.

The Firearms Act has done absolutely nothing to reduce the rates of domestic violence. According to Statistics Canada, a weapon is used in only 7% of spousal assault cases, and it’s female abusers who reach for a weapon twice as often as men. A firearm is used in spousal assault in a whopping 0.1% of cases, 0.08% of the time against women. That’s about 35 women per year. And there’s no indication as to how many of those women are threatened/harmed with a legally registered firearm. At a cost of $100 million per year to maintain the incomplete and inaccurate long gun registry for only 35 victims (specific to their cause), it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how deeply flawed the positions of Ms Mandelman and IANSA are.

Additionally, the use of a firearm in cases of spousal homicide has been declining since the 1970s. You’ll note from the graph below, that the rate of decline has actually slowed since the introduction of the Firearms Act in 1995. I’ve asked this question before, and I’ll continue to ask it until the “other side” can give me an answer: What could a piece of legislation introduced in 1995 possibly have to do with a trend that started in 1974?

In part of her interview with Cindy Cowan, Ms Mandelman made this video. In it, Ms Cowan states:

“…[it’s about societies] that say some people are worth less than, right, they have less value…”

I know exactly what she means. I am a firearms owner after all. According to the gun control lobby, my rights are less than the rights of abused women. According to the gun control lobby, it’s perfectly acceptable to limit the rights of 2 million licensed firearms owners for the sake of 35 women. I mean we’re only talking about the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, the right to be presumed innocent, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure, just to name a few. It’s not like those rights are important or anything. Those 2 million people are downright selfish for fighting to regain those rights when there are 35 women at risk who chose to stay in abusive relationships. How insensitive of those brutish, Neanderthal gun owners.

I’ll leave the dripping sarcasm behind to finish with one last part of Ms Mandelman’s blog.

“When they do take the step to begin a new life, they must often do so with someone else’s used sheets and outgrown clothes. How is this fair? How is it, I wonder, that there are individuals that consider their privilege of owning a firearm more worthy than the right to safety and protection, afforded to all Canadian citizens by their government?”

Second-hand clothes and sleeping in a dorm are not exactly one of life’s great hardships. Having done so for many years myself, I wouldn’t call it a hardship at all, but I realize that’s a highly subjective point. If it concerns Ms Mandelman that much, maybe she should consider just how many new sheets and clothes $100 million per year could buy these shelters.

As to her claim that firearm ownership is only a privilege in Canada, well I now have the happy job of informing her that she’s incorrect. I’ve recently been educated on that point myself. The details can be found here about halfway down the page under the section titled Right to Bear Arms.

As Ms Mandelman correctly stated, in Canada we do have the right to security of the person. This is the part where I get a little bit fuzzy about the gun control lobby’s stance. They claim to be fighting their campaign in the name of public safety, or in this case for the reduction of domestic violence. How then, do they justify taking away the very tool that a woman might use to protect herself?

Brad,
Add the number of domestic abuse deaths prevented and the number of perpetrators prohibited from acquiring firearms to the number of prevented suicides (or the use of firearms by people mentally unstable to own one), prevented accidents, and prevented criminal activities in this and other countries together, and it’s pretty easy to justify the Firearms Act (and, as has been pointed out again and again, it did not cost $2billion dollars).

You are correct in stating that you haven’t been using an emotional plea, and neither have I. There are fellows in other countries such as Uganda, Argentina, Nepal and Serbia, working on the same issue that I am. However, in those countries, there are no harmonized laws. Take a look at the statistics on domestic abuse and the use of firearms in those places, and maybe you’ll understand better why sometimes regulation is a good thing. I’m here looking at the Firearms Act as good practice, determing what elements are useful and what changes could be made to make the legislation even better. So by me being here, I am working to help other places in the world that you say are in need of people like me, with convictions.

I’m not going to raise the question of what Canada could possibly have in common with the other 27 countries on that list. I am going to ask if Ms Mandelman actually believes the segment that I highlighted. Because it sounds to me like she is implying (if not outright saying) that the primary reason that our firearms use and domestic violence rates are lower in Canada, is because of our laws.

So the extreme poverty in most of those countries has nothing to do with it? The staggering lack of education is irrelevant? Not just the history, but the culture of violence that is so prevalent in many of those countries isn’t important to the issue of domestic violence? And the fact that the majority of the countries on that list are traditionally patriarchal societies in which women have few inherent rights – that doesn’t factor in at all?

You see, I’ve been to several of the countries on that list. I’ve seen first hand how their societies work. I can say with absolute 100% conviction that restricting access to firearms will do NOTHING to reduce domestic violence in any of them. Sure, it may reduce firearm use, but the crime rates and levels of violence will remain the same.

The rate of domestic violence has been declining in Canada for decades. Any claims that a law which was introduced in 1995 has had any measurable effect on the numbers are completely false and not supported by the available data. In fact a weapon is used only 7% of the time in cases of domestic violence – that’s all types of weapons, not just firearms.

“The rates of overall fi rearm-related violent crime have been stable since 2003. Most violent offences, including homicide, attempted murder, robbery, forcible confinement and assault follow a similar pattern. Longer-term data, available for homicide and robbery, show that the rates of these two offences gradually declined throughout the past three decades with recent levels well below those reported in the 1970s. While the incidence of firearm-related violent crime is relatively low, those that are committed with a firearm most often involve a handgun.“

The section I’ve highlighted in bold shows, once again, that firearm-related crime has been falling since the 1970’s. So how could anyone claim that a piece of legislation introduced in 1995 has had anything whatsoever to do with it?

Handguns have been registered in Canada since 1934. Yet, as the section I’ve underlined states, they’re still the most used type of firearm in violent crimes. So what exactly has registration accomplished again?

There are many, many factors involved in the issue of domestic violence, especially in the third world. Claiming that tighter gun laws reduce domestic violence is not only statistically false, it’s also a betrayal of the victims whom the makers of these laws are supposedly trying to protect.